• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

Congress Funds New Motorcycle Crash Study

Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
2,644
Reaction score
2
Location
Texas
http://home.ama-cycle.org/newsroom/amarelease.asp?rnum=A05017

The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) is applauding Congress for funding for the first nationwide motorcycle-crash study in almost 30 years.

The bill, which President Bush is expected to sign this week, includes nearly $3 million for a study of motorcycle crashes. It specifies that the research grants be provided to the Oklahoma Transportation Center, located at Oklahoma State University.

"After more than a decade of decline, motorcycling fatalities have increased in recent years, and those increases have prompted endless speculation about the reasons why," said AMA President Robert Rasor. "We're pleased that Congress agrees that we need answers, not theories. We're anxious for the study to begin, to help us understand how to prevent crashes and save lives."

...The last comprehensive study on the subject, commonly called the "Hurt Report" after University of Southern California researcher Dr. Harry Hurt, was published in the 1970s.

The AMA notes that the bill also preserves motorcycles' access to High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and that it specifies that local governments will continue to be prohibited from excluding motorcycles from roads maintained with federal funds. In addition, the bill calls for motorcycles to be included in research on Intelligent Transportation systems, and makes available $25 million to individual states for motorcycle-safety training and awareness programs.

Although I cringe every time Congress spends my money, at least this time they are spending it on something that could benefit me personally.
 
I'm always leary anytime the government studies anything. That usually leads to recommendations, which usually leads to to lawyers and insurance companies setting the rules. I fear that we may ultimately lose ground when the "safteycrats" get involved.
 
This is something that the collective motorcycle community has been asking for for years (at least the politically active ones). Saying that you don't want the safetycrats getting involved at this point is too little, too late. Maybe you've voiced your concerns to the AMA or your congressional representative already about this. If so, then you are in the minority. I say let the chips fall where they will. This will just be a study, which will probably result in some recommendations. Those recommendations getting implemented will be an entirely new political process, and the AMA/MRF can fight that battle as well.

-Ryan
 
txmedic said:
I'm always leary anytime the government studies anything. That usually leads to recommendations, which usually leads to to lawyers and insurance companies setting the rules. I fear that we may ultimately lose ground when the "safteycrats" get involved.
Such as this...
Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, said she was pleased that the legislation would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to create stability standards by 2009 to prevent vehicle rollovers.
I guess we'll be seeing Susie Soccermom driving SUVs with training wheels starting in 2007 if Claybrook (the automotive she-devil) has anything to do with it.


It contains a $15 billion highway bond plan, pushed by Sens. Jim Talent, R-Mo., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, that will promote road and bridge construction through public-private partnerships.
Can you say Texas Toll Road? I knew you could.


The bill expands toll pilot projects for new roads as a way to ease congestion, and it gives states authority to set rules for access to car pool lanes by single-occupancy hybrid vehicles.
My gasoline powered (only) Civic gets 40 mpg, more than many of their precious hybrids. But do I get to use the HOV as a single occupant? Oh no.


The government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense found 6,376 special projects in the 1,752-page bill. California, Illinois and New York received the largest sums, with Alaska ranking fourth. Next were Texas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and Oklahoma -- the latter being the home state of Sen. James M. Inhofe (R), the bill's chief Senate negotiator. Lawmakers packed $24 billion in special projects into the transportation bill that finally passed Congress yesterday, including $5.9 million for a Vermont snowmobile trail and $3 million for a documentary about Alaska infrastructure.


And from a conservative Mormon point of view... A few lawmakers voiced complaints. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) called the legislation "no way to spend money" and said, "Let's be honest . . . it's busting the budget."
 
Garthhog said:
This is something that the collective motorcycle community has been asking for for years (at least the politically active ones). Saying that you don't want the safetycrats getting involved at this point is too little, too late. Maybe you've voiced your concerns to the AMA or your congressional representative already about this. If so, then you are in the minority. I say let the chips fall where they will. This will just be a study, which will probably result in some recommendations. Those recommendations getting implemented will be an entirely new political process, and the AMA/MRF can fight that battle as well.

-Ryan

Don't get me wrong, I just don't trust that the information will lead to anything productive beyond saving money for the insurance industry. Remember the misguided attempt to force seatbelts on motorcyclists? Or the mandatory organ donations for unhelmeted riders? Granted, the AMA was successful in shooting those down, and that is one of the primary reasons I belong. I also remember tariffs for bikes of larger displacement to protect Harley-Davidson, and the insurance industry's attempts to ban (via refusal to cover) larger displacement machines.
 
txmedic said:
Garthhog said:
This is something that the collective motorcycle community has been asking for for years (at least the politically active ones). Saying that you don't want the safetycrats getting involved at this point is too little, too late. Maybe you've voiced your concerns to the AMA or your congressional representative already about this. If so, then you are in the minority. I say let the chips fall where they will. This will just be a study, which will probably result in some recommendations. Those recommendations getting implemented will be an entirely new political process, and the AMA/MRF can fight that battle as well.

-Ryan

Don't get me wrong, I just don't trust that the information will lead to anything productive beyond saving money for the insurance industry. Remember the misguided attempt to force seatbelts on motorcyclists? Or the mandatory organ donations for unhelmeted riders? Granted, the AMA was successful in shooting those down, and that is one of the primary reasons I belong. I also remember tariffs for bikes of larger displacement to protect Harley-Davidson, and the insurance industry's attempts to ban (via refusal to cover) larger displacement machines.

I don't think that any of the examples that you cited resulted from any kind of study resembling the Hurt Report. Seatbelts for motorcyclists? I'm either too young to remember, or it flew under my personal radar, but that seems just the result political stupidity, not the Hurt Report. Tariffs to protect Harley's? That had it's roots in the same mentality as that which brought about tariffs designed to protect the auto industry... US corporate protectionism. Unfortunately, with both Harley and the Auto industry, it gave them an excuse to manufacture JUNK, and the only study that brought it about would have been done by Harley Davidson's accounting/marketing department.

I think that the study will be benefitial and enlightening. how effective the insurance industry is in attempting to manipulate public policy in their favor as a result depends upon whether the AMA/MRF can raise enough cain to counter them. The more voices that the AMA/MRF has, the louder they (we) can scream in politician's ears. It's not just money that gets their attention. If the AMA had the membership role with both size AND passion (see the NRA for example), it could get more done.

I think that a recruitment drive is in order.

-Ryan
 
Garthhog said:
If the AMA had the membership role with both size AND passion (see the NRA for example), it could get more done.

I think that a recruitment drive is in order.
+1
 
I remember the seat belt proposal to be a New York state legislator's proposal -- not federal. I could be wrong.

Joan Claybrook is the one who decided that motorcyclists tend to crash while trying to stop because it steers with the front wheel. She then spent our tax payer money having a prototype built that steered with the rear wheel.

If you want to get something truely and royaled fouled up, put the government in charge.
 
Mr Ed said:
Joan Claybrook is the one who decided that motorcyclists tend to crash while trying to stop because it steers with the front wheel. She then spent our tax payer money having a prototype built that steered with the rear wheel.
Modify that...she spent a LOT of taxpayer money on the goofy idea. She was one of many GBG's (Goof-Balls in Gov't) under Carter. I believe the motorcycle magazine editors called her Ms. Claymore (after the anti-personnel mine).

As for the study, it is long overdue. I too am concerned that some politicians, or safety gear company via their politician, will try to use it for their own agenda.

However, I would like to see an update on DOT helmet standards for G-Force absorption, like that which came from a recent study in Europe. After the Motorcyclist magazine article on helmets, Snell hinted that new findings could affect their standards also.

This could be good, if the gov't doesn't decide to force us all to wear helmets so big that we look Jack-in-the-Box 'tenna-toppers.
 
Texas T said:
The government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense found 6,376 special projects in the 1,752-page bill. California, Illinois and New York received the largest sums, with Alaska ranking fourth. Next were Texas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and Oklahoma -- the latter being the home state of Sen. James M. Inhofe (R), the bill's chief Senate negotiator. Lawmakers packed $24 billion in special projects into the transportation bill that finally passed Congress yesterday, including $5.9 million for a Vermont snowmobile trail and $3 million for a documentary about Alaska infrastructure.

Whenever the gov't talks about the Federal Matching Funds for roads, it is pretty much money that the states have already paid in to the fund, kinda like your tax refund. All I can say about this is finally, Texas and Oklahoma have been donor states for more than 20 years, which means they have been sending in more gas tax money than they get back for the past 20 years, something to the tune of 88%. Whereas states like Montana, Idaho and Alaska receive upwards of 122% of the funds they put into it.

At least this type of funding leads to jobs (in engr, construction and the ripples from that) as opposed to so much funding is nothing more than corporate welfare anymore.
 
Here is what I was talking about:

The Oklahoman - Inhofe helps state lose 'donor' tag (Require Registration)

By Chris Casteel
The Oklahoman

WASHINGTON - For most of the past 50 years, Oklahoma has been a so-called "donor state" regarding federal highway funding, receiving back less to fix its roads and bridges than state motorists paid in gas taxes.

That situation should change under the new federal highway bill.

Sen. Jim Inhofe is co-chairman of the House-Senate committee that wrote the final version of the bill, which is expected to be signed by President Bush this week.

He said the measure will be the first to assure the state it will receive its fair share, in fact slightly more, of the Highway Trust Fund.

Inhofe, R-Tulsa, was able to boost the state out of donor status by securing hundreds of millions of dollars for specific highway projects -- such as the Crosstown Expressway in Oklahoma City -- and millions more in lump sum payments for general highway and bridge improvements and various research projects.

Oklahoma's five House members also were able to secure money. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, was allotted money for projects but allowed the state Transportation Department to choose where to apply it.

The bill promises the state about $3.3 billion the next five years. That represents a return of $1.02 for every dollar state motorists are estimated to pay in federal gas taxes, Inhofe said.

Without all of the bonus money sprinkled throughout the bill by Inhofe, Oklahoma would likely have been a loser again the next five years.

Under the bill, the federal funding formula -- through which the bulk of federal highway funding is allocated -- guarantees Oklahoma only a 92-cent return for each dollar paid in federal gas taxes. That money is sent to the state Transportation Department for its priorities.

That's up from the 90.5-cent guarantee in the highway bill passed in 1998, but still less than the 95-cent guarantee Inhofe and other lawmakers sought for all donor states. Some states receive more than their motorists pay in taxes.

"It's a long-ingrained system that is difficult to change," said Gary Ridley, director of the Oklahoma Transportation Department.

The state has paid about $1 billion more into the Highway Trust Fund since 1956 than it has received back in federal money to expand and repair roads and bridges, Ridley said. Federal Highway Administration figures show that from 1956 through 2003, Oklahoma is one of 15 states that paid more into the fund than it received; Texas, Florida and California have been the biggest losers.

Lawmakers who wanted to boost the guaranteed return rate higher than 92 cents for donor states argued that not enough money was in the $286 billion bill to do so.

From a financial standpoint, a bill's overall cost doesn't have to determine whether all states receive an equitable return on the money they send to Washington for roads.

However, from a political standpoint, raising the shares of some states is complicated by the fact that it would mean other states might have their shares reduced. So it has become a reality of writing long-term highway bills that donor states don't get their rates improved without a pool of money set aside to do so.

Neal McCaleb, a highway funding expert who spent many years overseeing Oklahoma's transportation agencies, remembers when he first started complaining about funding inequities at a 1987 meeting of the American Association of State Highway Officials.

"It was a bloodbath," McCaleb said. "There was this zero-sum mentality -- if you got more, someone got less."

After lengthy debate in 1956, Congress raised the federal gasoline tax -- and created the Highway Trust Fund to hold the proceeds from the tax -- to finance a 41,250-mile national interstate highway system.

The House and Senate argued back then over how the money should be distributed, but eventually agreed to a formula already being used for federal aid for highways:

Two-thirds was based on the ratio of a state's population to the national population.

One-sixth on the ratio of state to national mileage of rural free delivery routes.

One-sixth on the ratio of a state's area to the national geographic area.

Ridley said the initial effect of that formula was to help large but sparsely populated states afford to pay for their share of the interstate system.

McCaleb said so much enthusiasm existed at first about building the interstate system that inequities among the states probably received little attention.

If the Oklahoma congressional delegation took notice at the time, he said, "we didn't have enough muscle to shift it to our benefit."

The last several years, lawmakers whose states have come out on the short end said the inequities should have ended when the interstate system was completed.

Ridley agrees.

"Why South Dakota gets twice as much (as its motorists pay into the fund) doesn't make sense to me anymore," he said.

McCaleb called the federal funding formula "convoluted" and said the allocation of road money has become a highly political exercise -- "who's at the table and who makes the best deal."
 
Back
Top